tv [untitled] March 27, 2012 1:00pm-1:30pm EDT
>> good. >> caller: you know, i'm not a millionaire and i'm not a lawyer. but what i think is a no brainer just like okay we have -- we have medicare medicaid and all this. and we have -- i personally have advantage of kansas city. and medicare. why don't -- why don't they okay -- i pay $95 a month for medicare. why don't they just make medicare and the insurance that we have make it better if we have to pay a little bit more money or stuff like that, do it.
do it like that. give -- they've got the perfect example, the senate and the house. they've got a perfect example of the guidelines of insurance and so on and so forth. just like. >> so robert, would you be willing to pay a few extra dollars a month? >> caller: sure. i think everybody would. >> what do you think about means testing for individuals who can afford a little bit more? >> caller: okay. let's face it there's going a certain amount of people that i don't know if you want to say the state government or the federal government, and so on and so forth. it's going to have to pay. okay, you take people that don't
have green cards. i'm not saying any certain race. i'm just talking/what are going to do? >> we'll leave it there. huntington, new york jerry on our republican line. you're on c-span. good afternoon to you. >> caller: good afternoon to you. my only comment is -- well i am against the mandate. from my observations as all this has been going on, i do believe it's unconstitutional because there's no precedent for it whether than this is something they're quoting george washington did. we'll see how the court handles that.
>> we'll leave your comments. and look at this tweet from christian who says one simply can't equate health insurance and car insurance mandates. car insurance protects others property around you. next call as we await the release of the oral -- the audio transcripts today from kathleen in hammond ininn a democrat. >> caller: hi good afternoon. i have a question and a quick comment. is -- is the issue with clarence thomas i'm thinking he should have really recused himself from this because of his wife's rather odd activities that i would think would prejudice him in a certain way and i'm surprised that he was actually allowed to sit on the bench and
hear this case because him and his wife were -- she's a tea party activist and has been doing a lot activities as far as not liking the health care act. so i'm just questioning why clarence thomas is allowed to even hear this case. my comment is, you know, it just amazes me that like the previous caller the exact mandate that was brought up that newt gingrich was very much for that mitt romney put in his health care bill in massachusetts that the her talk foundation they love id it. about 99% of congress are millionaires or mull
millionaires. why you mentioned a good word, means test. i've been asking this question for years. why is social security medicare why is none of this stuff mean tested and you hear these republicans republicans, why are we paying their health care? >> we're going to leave it stand right there. here's a tweet from treedom dude. next comes from robert in las vegas on our republican line. >> caller: my statement is part of the -- part of the major problem with the nonpayers is at least here in las vegas is the illegal aliens. it's about 95% of the people that don't pay here in our hospitals are illegal aliens. i imagine it's probably that way across the country. so even if this was to go through, it's not going to solve
that problem. this bill does not cover everybody that doesn't have insurance, it only covers about 2/3 of them. between the illegal alien issue and not covering everybody, i think it's a wash. so what does this accomplish besides making everybody pay for insurance that a lot of people already have and will probably lose if this bill goes through. so i don't know. i see it as a big power grab from the government because if they get this through then it will be something else. it scope creeks. constant scope creek with this congress always trying to get a little more power and a little more power. before you know it they're going to be telling us what we can do in every aspect of our life. >> that was robert from las vegas. oral arguments for the day concluded a little over an hour ago and a little over an hour ago democratic senators held a press conference to talk about
their views on health care. senator schumer and jack reed a democrat from rhode island for there. here's the press conference. >> i'd like to begin now. now the supreme court today heard arguments on what has been described as the individual mandate. i just want to read a passage from the summary of the senate east health care law that lays out the mandate. quote, requires each citizen or launch permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program. in other words, each citizen is mandated to have health insurance. now i just to make one clarification. this is indeed from the senate health care law. but it's not from the affordable care act. it's an exempt from the senate republican's health care proposal from 1993. the concept of an individual mandate was first floated by the heritage
foundation. it was taken up by conservative republicans as an alternative to the universal health bill proposed by president clinton. senators grassley hatch and luger were co-sponsors as was then senator majority leader bob dole. and countless other republicans have endorsed the mandate in recent years. in 2009 senator grassly did. in 2007 senator demint did. senators graham, alexander and corker have all endorsed an individual mandate. they were cosponsors of the wide and bennett the americans health that included an individual mandate. what we're seeing now is baffling. republicans have gone from being the main champion of the individual mandate to being its main antagonist. you have to ask why. the republicans were fathers of the individual mandate. mow suddenly they want to give it up for adoption on the steps of the u.s. supreme court. the flip-flop on the individual
mandate is the prime example of their willingness to oppose anything this president proposes simply because he proposed it. because it was their idea. and of course, there is the issue of mitt romney who passed romney care in massachusetts which is based on exactly the same model health care law we passed two years ago. there's no question that the health care law mitt romney passed as governor of massachusetts is the same one that president obama passed at the federal level. four years ago am i right romney even called the law he signed in massachusetts a model for the rest of the country. he wrote an op-ed in usa today in july 20 debate was raging calling on the president to follow the example he set with his law in massachusetts. and then the president when he proposed his plan said he was basing it on mitt romney's idea
in massachusetts. now that the man date's unpopular with conservatives romney's trying to disown what he didmassachusetts. well, mitt can run but he can't hide. no matter what he tries to say now, mitt romney is a walking, talking, amicus brief in favor of the president's health care law. if he tries to make it an issue in a debate with president obama it's just going to confirm he's the etch-a-sketch candidate. he should admit it was planned all along. if mitt romney is the nominee, in fact, health care will be off the table as an issue windchill that i am going to call on the chairman of our judiciary committee who is in the proceedings senator leahy. >> i found the proceeding interesting. it's interesting, too, the final argument, the last two minutes of the argument is the solicitor general saying this would work
well just as it does in massachusetts to cover everybody that did bring a little bit of a murmur in the courtroom. as you listen to the argument, the question of constitutionality today very obvious if this law is unconstitutional then tomorrow somebody could come and attack social security for the same reason. that would be unconstitutional. or people like myself who buy insurance but also have to pay medicare, we could say well medicare is unconstitutional because why should i have to pay for that when i'm also paying for private insurance. you could go through all these examples. this is unconstitutional, the argument can be made all the rest are unconstitutional. i don't think that's what the american public wants. i'm not sure that that is the kind of issue the supreme court
want to unleash on americans. >> senator harkin who's chairman of the health committee who was instrumental in writing a good part of this law. >> it's clear after spending two hours in the supreme court listening to the arguments, that the opponents of the health reform act -- >> that was a little bit of the democratic senators from about noon today talking about what was going on in the supreme court and their views on health care laws. we want to continue to take your calls for a few minutes. now the court will be releasing the transcripts in just the next few minutes. we will get those ready and get those on the air for you. they will always when available in just a few minutes will be available at cspan.org as well so you can listen online or watch here on c-span3. by the way all of this will be rebroadcast in prime time tonight on our c-span networks. mary in haimington, new jersey, you are on c-span, what are your thoughts about what the supreme court is doing and the health care arguments that you're
hearing? >> caller: thank you for hearing me today. i'd like to first tell -- advice you that i am a registered nurse. i guess attended a health care conference in regards to obama care. what the american citizens don't realize is that if obama care is not repealed and we start over that their care is going to be rationed. you're going to have many physicians that are going to be closing their door due to the reimbursement factor in this law. you're going to see a lot of elderly people not be able to get the care that they need. and also when it comes to chronic conditions, let's not forget that chronic conditions usually start with an acute condition that winds up being a chronic condition. that they should have treated. i think this is a euthanasia
issue. there will be a panel that will be assigned that's going to determine if you get that operation or you don't get that operation. i think it should be repealed. i also feel that this is a violation of our constitutional rights. and i'm also very appalled when i hear senators state that it's because obama introduced it. has nothing to do with president obama. the fact is it is a matter of our lives. we should have that freedom of choice between our physician our hospitals, in order to decide what care that we want for ourselves. >> phoenix is irene in washington. >> caller: hi. i was born and raised in england. we did not have any family medical until i was about 10 years old. by people through the
payments. when you get your paycheck you have money deducted to cover your medical. it covers everybod afford it, that's tough. but they will pay for you because it loving country. and i don't understand why it hasn't gone to a i just retired. i don't have because when i required they cancelled my medical. i get medicare which i pay for every year which we do out of our pension. that money's taken out. it's not a freebie. i have emfathe see ma. my medication is $900. i get -- my medication is $400. my pension is $900. don't tell me to go back to england. i can go to canada i'm a british citizen. something needs to be done children in this country that
need medical. stop helping other countries with millions of dollars. help our children here. i would gladly give part of my i do what i can now, you need to wake up and the constitution i don't know many people who even know what the constitution means. they've never read it. they don't understand it. >> all right. irene, thank you for your comments. the picture that you're looking at is taken of the supreme court and it is from the capitol right across the street. these are the capitol grounds the east lawn of the capitol and right behind that camera is the capitol itself. but it looks like a vast expanse. it is pretty large and then you just cross a four-lane city street and you're at the supreme court, which is right there on your screen. now we have this tweet from kenneth whitley. what happened to posting today's argument at 1:00 p.m.?
mr. whitley, we'll tell you that it has just been released. it is now available at cspan.org. you can listen to it online. you can see it there in the gold bar. click on that and you'll be able to listen to today's two-hour oral arguments on the individual mandate. and in just a few minutes, we'll be bringing it to you here as well on c-span3. what we do here is we will combine it with the pictures of the justices speaking and the lawyers speaking so you really have an idea of who is who and how the interaction is going and we actually get the oral arguments from the court. we get a raw file. and we put that together here in our studio. and tonya chapman is the producer of that. she'll be spending the next two hours recognizing or identifying the justices and making sure that we're getting that all correct. by the way, this entire package will re-air in primetime tonight
on the c span networks. krstspan.org for all the information. walter in indian wells we have time for a few more calls. >> caller: hi. how you doing? thank you for taking my call. i'm an attorney of 45 years. i'm a republican. i do believe we need health care reform. so with that thought in mind i would tell you that i've never read the whole act. t it. i suppose i have if i went online somewhere. but i don't think any of these guys knew what they were passing when they passed it. okay. there were two issues that i was concerned about. one tort reform which i would be
100% for if it works. if it is going to save save money on medical malpractice. secondly i am for allowing insurance companies insurance in any state in the union. this way i think we should be able to lower our medical costs. now, the one thing or other you know price these things out with the budget to the budget committee, the independent budget committee. and how they would look with sales of health care in every state in the union. each company being allowed to operate in all 50 states. >> walter thank you for your
congressmens from indian wells california. in about five minutes we will be bringing you here on c-span3 the oral arguments from today the audio transcripts have been released. we're putting them together. if you can't wait and you want to hear it right away cspan.org. you can go there and listen to the oral arguments right now. there's a gold bar at the top of our website. you'll be able to click on that and you'll be able to listen to all the audio. we've gotten some tweets here that we thought we'd share with you. michael says historic arguments at the supreme court. so isn't it ridiculous that they aren't televised? surely a c-span style feed is needed. i'd watch and brian perry tweets in, dear supreme court cspan just called to tell you about these innovative things called video cameras. also 1979 left you a voice mail. we tend to agree with both of those comments that we would
like to have our cameras inside the supreme court, but we have been turned down on that. by the way, we did a poll a little bit earlier. it's on our facebook page. we asked people if they would be interesteds in cameras in the courtroom in following these health care oral arguments. 95% of americans said they are interested in the proceedings. 54% plan on listening to the audio release and 86% believe that the supreme court should have allowed cameras into the court for these organize arguments while 74% think the supreme court should always allow cameras in the courtroom. facebook.com/cspan in case you're interested in seeing that poll. st. petersburg, florida, paul on the democrats line. >> caller: good afternoon. i want to say quickly, what i don't hear a lot of argument about or people speaking about
within the health care law or within the existing health care in america i have a preexisting condition. i lost my health care insurance economic factors. i know i now can afford health care insurance but i can't buy it. because meds and i can't treat the condition that i have. and i've tried and tried to get insurance and it's just -- there's nothing there. to ever address this. i know it's in the health care plan. when you talk to republicans, they just say get a job and get group insurance that's just not something that works for a lot of us. and i don't know. that's all i can say. >> laura on the republican line. >> caller: i just want to say it should be struck down. i'm 73 years old and most of my life i went without insurance. i paid out of my pocket.
i've never made more than $14,000 a year and i'm tired of having to pay for people that don't want to work. thank you very much. >> time for one last call before we play the oral arguments from today's individual mandate hearing this is rose mary in philadelphia a democrat. rose mary, you're the last comment. >> caller: okay. i want to say that i'm one of the americans who probably will have had health insurance coverage my entire life from cradle to grave. i was born in the philadelphia navy hospital. had health insurance policy coverage until i began working and was fortunate to always work in positions with health care coverage. when i'm listening to the republicans saying that this was a disgrace people on cradle to grave coverage, of course people need cradle to grave coverage.
we need healthy individuals have been babies. we need prenatal care for women. we need full maternity coverage. we immediate health care for children. we need all their well baby care covered and so on until the end of life. >> we thank all our viewers and callers today as our coverage from the court continues today. if you want to hear the oral arguments you can listen to them there. but coming up right now on c-span3 are the oral arguments along with the pictures of the justices and lawyers and who may be speaking. that's put together. we're going to show that to you now. this will all replay in prime time and you'll be able to see our continuing coverage tomorrow morning in morning in the washington journal as well. >> we will continue argument
this morning in case 11398 the department of health and human services versus florida. general. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court, the affordable care act addresses a fundamental and enduring problem in our health care system and our economy. ensure has become the predominant means of paying for health care in this country. for most americans for more than 80% of americans the insurance system does provide effective access. for more than 40 million americans who do not have access to health insurance either through employer or government programs such as medicare or medicaid, the system does not
work. those individuals must resort to the individual market. that market does not provide affordable health insurance. it does not do so because the multibillion dollar subsidies that are available for the employer market are not available in the individual market. it does not do so because erisa and hiipa regulations that preclude discrimination against people based on their medical history do not apply in the victim market. that is an economic problem. it begets another -- >> why aren't those problems that the federal government can address directly? >> they can address it directly justice scalia. they are addressing it directly through this act by regulating the means by which health care -- by which health care is purchased. that is the way this act works.
under the commerce clause what congress has done is to enact reforms of the insurance market directed at the individual insurance market that precludes -- that preclude discrimination based on preexisting conditions that require guaranteed issue community rating. it using and the minimum coverage provision is necessary to carry into execution those insurance reforms. >> you create commerce in order to regulate it. >> that's not what's going on here justice kennedy. we're not seeking to defend the law on that basis. in this case, what is being regulated is the method of financing the purchase of health care. that itself is economic activity with substantial effects on interstate commerce. >> so any self-purchasing? if i'm in any market at all, my failure to purchase something in
that market subjects me to regular lace. >> no. that's not our position at all, justice scalia. health care market the health care market is characterized by the fact that aside from the few groups that congress choose to exempt from the minimum coverage requirement those for who religious reasons don't participate, those who are incarcerated indian tribes virtually everybody else is in that market or will be in that market and the distinguishing feature of that is that they cannot -- people cannot generally control when they enter that market or what they need when they enter that market. >> is same it seems to me would be true for the market in emergency services. police, fire, ambulance roadside assistance, whatever. you don't know when you're going to need it. you're not sure that you will, but the same is true for health care. you don't know if you're going to need a heart transplant or if you ever will. there's a market there to some
extent we all participate in it. so can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services you can just dial 911 no matter where you are? >> no mr. chief justice, i think that's different. i don't think we think of that as a market. this is a market. this is market regulation. in addition you have a situation in this market not only where people enter involuntarily and won't be able to control what they need when they enter. >> it